"Logical" objection to Empiricism?

But I think the question of "how do you know it's [the logical truth] is true?" is a good one. As iceaura argued, all logical truths are only as sound as the veracity of their axioms/premises. A logical truth is only true in so far as the truth-value is defined by the same logic. How do we know that the circle of logic is itself true, in an objective sense, rather than just true with reference to that which is calling it true? Can we know that? Or do we just make the assumption - even go so far as making it an axiom - that such logic produces truth in every instance?
I mentioned how empiricism can at least confirm the truth but cannot prove it - so how can we know it without proof? What can provide proof? Is it again reason alone? I wish I knew enough to know the answer.

Sure, if you think of logic as being nothing but formal logic. But that seems both tautological and false to me! If you think we can only discover the truth of a conclusion through using the kind of formal logic you've somehow learnt at school and only after having made explicit the relevant premises or axioms or assumptions then, sure.

How do I know a logical truth is true? I think in broadly the same way as I know redness or pain when I experience it. Don't ask me how I do that, though.

And I'm sure we all do it, though I accept I might be wrong on that!
EB

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Nobody knows that if A then B since it's certainly not the case that if A then B unless you specified A and B.

Click to expand...

One frequently, as standard procedure, argues from appropriate premises that "if A then B". If the argument is (logically, as agreed) valid, it establishes "If A then B" logically. This is then knowledge, in most people's view - most people accept the conclusions of valid reasoning, logical truths, as information of a useful kind, as knowledge of the situation.
Note that not even A, let alone B, need be specified in advance - A could be a complicated end product of a very long chain of reasoning from whatever the premises of the whole situation were, and B of course is established by validity of the argument from A.

Example: after a long chain of reasoning the philosopher of natural science concludes that if basement centipedes grow to be the size of wolfhounds then they seriously endanger children. Suppose careful inspection of his reasoning finds it impeccable: given his premises, his conclusion does follow - a logical truth.

And we see that is a bit of knowledge - we do know that if A then B, here. It can even be useful knowledge, as similar conclusions of valid reasoning have been in the past - say: leading to the realization that there was an absence to explain (large predatory centipedes endangering large mammals) and focusing attention on matters that would in fact explain the absence (one or more of his premises is not met in the physical world).

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

One frequently, as standard procedure, argues from appropriate premises that "if A then B". If the argument is (logically, as agreed) valid, it establishes "If A then B" logically. This is then knowledge, in most people's view - most people accept the conclusions of valid reasoning, logical truths, as information of a useful kind, as knowledge of the situation.
Note that not even A, let alone B, need be specified in advance - A could be a complicated end product of a very long chain of reasoning from whatever the premises of the whole situation were, and B of course is established by validity of the argument from A.

Example: after a long chain of reasoning the philosopher of natural science concludes that if basement centipedes grow to be the size of wolfhounds then they seriously endanger children. Suppose careful inspection of his reasoning finds it impeccable: given his premises, his conclusion does follow - a logical truth.

And we see that is a bit of knowledge - we do know that if A then B, here. It can even be useful knowledge, as similar conclusions of valid reasoning have been in the past - say: leading to the realization that there was an absence to explain (large predatory centipedes endangering large mammals) and focusing attention on matters that would in fact explain the absence (one or more of his premises is not met in the physical world).

Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understood the OP. It seems we're not talking at all about the same thing here.

If I understand what you say, you are talking about a situation where B has been observed to be true whenever A has been observed to be true, which leads you to conclude that the implication A ⇒ B is true. This is your standard empirical method. And if you ever came to observe even one case of B being false while A would be true, you would then discard the implication A ⇒ B as being false, again standard procedure, in fact not only of scientists but of every reasonable person on earth.

Obviously, in this context, establishing the truth of the premise A is absolutely necessary. In science, this will be done presumably by careful observation and, if necessary to that end, by carrying out an experiment or using an experimental setup.

That's all interesting but I already had a fairly good idea of how the scientific method works and that's just all fine with me. So your point is all well and good but apparently entirely beside the point. I'm talking about logical truths, not about the scientific method. And in this case, I fail to see where I would need to use any premise.

Unless you can demonstrate that we tell logical truths using the same modus operandi as you sort of described in your post.

Now, I'd be very interested to see that because if I'm doing anything like this, I would be doing it while being totally unaware I'm doing it, even as I'm trying to find out how I'm doing it. It would truly come as a major revelation to me, somewhat like the sea opening up for Moïse to cross.

It would be a revelation for me but I think it would be a revelation for all those people who do understand what a logical truth is, including quite a few bright minds in the long history of philosophy. They'll be watching this space very carefully I'm sure from wherever in Heaven they must be brooding now.
EB

If I understand what you say, you are talking about a situation where B has been observed to be true whenever A has been observed to be true, which leads you to conclude that the implication A ⇒ B is true

Click to expand...

Nothing in my post suggests anything of the kind. My example, for example, is of the opposite situation - where neither A nor B has been observed, and neither one is thought to be at all likely or even possible, but "If A then B" has been validly reasoned from premises.

And that valid logical reasoning, concluding in a logical truth, produced thereby knowledge - something then known and usefully so, namely "If A then B".

And some of the use of this kind of knowledge is in empirical investigation - scientific research. It instigates and inspires and guides and analyzes and aids in comprehension.

Nothing in my post suggests anything of the kind. My example, for example, is of the opposite situation - where neither A nor B has been observed, and neither one is thought to be at all likely or even possible, but "If A then B" has been validly reasoned from premises.

And that valid logical reasoning, concluding in a logical truth, produced thereby knowledge - something then known and usefully so, namely "If A then B".

And some of the use of this kind of knowledge is in empirical investigation - scientific research. It instigates and inspires and guides and analyzes and aids in comprehension.

If you look at it analytically, i.e. using your linguistic skills to analyse the formula, you may be tempted to say there's a mistake or that the formula doesn't say quite as much as it could say. Then again, if you let your brain explains things to you, you should see it works just fine. In other words, because it may not be so easy analytically for the untrained, it should be easier for you to use your intuition than to plod through a formal proof. Best way to get convinced, I guess.

If you look at it analytically, i.e. using your linguistic skills to analyse the formula, you may be tempted to say there's a mistake or that the formula doesn't say quite as much as it could say. Then again, if you let your brain explains things to you, you should see it works just fine. In other words, because it may not be so easy analytically for the untrained, it should be easier for you to use your intuition than to plod through a formal proof. Best way to get convinced, I guess.

This one is more basic: ((A ⇒ B) and (B ⇒ C)) ⇒ (A ⇒ C).
EB

Click to expand...

So what use is a logical truth unless some part of it is connected to reality?

The fundamental reason for the usefulness of logical truths is that they are things we know. Personally, I am certain that anything you know is useful. The only limitation is in yourself, i.e. whether you'll find out how to use what you know.

More specifically, I would expect knowning logical truths to help prove mathematical theorems and thereby simplify the mathematics of science in particular. I am no mathematician, so I don't know if logical truths are used in practice or how much. But I think they must be or could be.

Philosophers seem to have very different views on the question of the connection to reality. As I see it, logical truths are about reality only in the sense that they are about our models of the physical world, about our mathematical models of the world but also and more fundamentally about our mind as a model of the world around us. So, as such, I would say they have to be very useful.

Sorry I can't give specific examples but that's not really my concern here and this point has not bearing on the question I put in the OP...

An objection to truth is not always a simple conjecture. The top of the list makes known logic a truth so it seems like history is always telling the truth : like with i or x that i can equal to x or ix is always a joined sentence of a simple truth that many logics are imaginary. This makes an axis of many lines joined together put into focus empiricism as just a pivotal argument for whether or not lines can be formed again and again without a line or axis but with imagination, that seems more like an empirical argument that sinx + a value is core to the aligned value and that all federations of morality and a concept is more like an afternoon -a particular one with push and pull: like an evening. To look at everything with logic would then be a b to the sinx and then a value then puts a signed in afternoon more like plural many nights and many nights out of a month leads logic back to b as in a = sinx or sinx + C and that puts a value into the second core than the valuable core. Sinx + a can then make a value more special and the lesser value is then more of sinx then a dark night then a lighted night. The truth would be that it's night and a logical conjecture would be the calculation of wind or better- the calculation of temperature over the roofs.

empiricism is based on things that are manifest into something that can be measured . while that is fine as it goes , what of things that exist but so far don't manifest to the point that can be measured ?

epigenetics for example .

the understanding that the environment , is what actually controls the genetic expression of the genes .

empiricism is based on things that are manifest into something that can be measured . while that is fine as it goes , what of things that exist but so far don't manifest to the point that can be measured ?

epigenetics for example .

the understanding that the environment , is what actually controls the genetic expression of the genes .

Click to expand...

Epigenetics have been observed. If you can't observe it directly, we can only infer it's existence based on it's effects.